Banfield pulls the plug on docking, cropping
By Gina Spadafori
July 30, 2009
From DVM360:Banfield, The Pet Hospital will discontinue ear cropping and tail docking surgeries.
[...]
In July, heated discussion about cosmetic surgeries erupted at the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) meeting in Seattle where its governing body reaffirmed its position against ear cropping and tail docking.
[...]
“After thoughtful consideration and reviewing medical research, we have determined it is in the best interest of the pets we treat, as well as the overall practice, to discontinue performing these unnecessary cosmetic procedures,” explains Karen Faunt, DVM, MS, Dipl. ACVIM, vice president for medical quality advancement for Banfield. “It is our hope that this new medical protocol will help reduce, and eventually eliminate, these cosmetic procedures altogether.”
Well, hoo-ray.
Honestly, I have never had a huge issue with tail docking. I wouldn’t choose to do it or have it done, but I’ve seen it done and I’m not sure it’s that big a deal for the puppies. Personally, though, I like tails, long and wagging!
Ear-cropping is a different matter. I grew up with boxers and well remember the pain our puppies expressed when their taped ears were bumped. In the old days, ear cropping was said to be helpful to the dog, on the idea that the upright ears would be less prone to ear infection. That idea has no scientific merit, and the number of veterinarians who do ear cropping has fallen steadily for years.
Ear cropping is done for cosmetics, and would probably have disappeared years ago were it not for the fact that in some breeds it’s nearly impossible for a dog to become a show champion with the ears with which he was born. This has changed in some breeds, but remains largely true in others.
The American Kennel Club could end ear cropping in all but dog-fighting circles by twisting the arms of the breed clubs to make slicing the ears of their dogs unacceptable.
Stranger things have happened, but don’t hold your breath.
In the meantime, kudos to Banfield.
though it’s common for dogfighters to crop their dogs ears now, in the “olddays”, fighting dogs often had natural ears. Most fighting dogs didn’t use an ear hold, since it’s not very effective, so the supposed reason for dogfighters to crop is (like just about everything they say) b.s.
The standards for the AKC AST call for “natural ears preferred”; for the UKC APBT, either cropped or natural is acceptable. Though you rarely see a natural-eared dog of those breeds in conformation. In contrast to their English cousin, the SBT (also originally a fighting dog) whose ears MAY NOT (and never are) cropped for conformation.
Dogs with ears look (as well as feel) so much better.
Comment by EmilyS — July 30, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
I used to be neutral to both procedures until I heard about neuromas that occur with docked dogs (and which are commonly recorded in sheep). That would mean the ‘the pain is over instantly’ excuse is not necessarily true for some docked dogs… and also the logic of ‘preventing’ a small chance of injury to a bodypart by —causing permanent injury— to the same part makes no sense at all to me, as a reason for doing it.
Rufflyspeaking wrote some good entries on cropping/docking. If anything, it made me reconsider my past views on the procedures: http://rufflyspeaking.wordpres.....aws-oh-my/
Comment by Pai — July 30, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Thanks for that refer, Pai!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 30, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
“In the old days, ear cropping was said to be helpful to the dog, on the idea that the upright ears would be less prone to ear infection.”
That’s kinda funny when you look at the natural ears in the boxer image. If that was really a belief, we should have been cropping retrievers, Dals, hounds, spaniels etc all along . . .
Comment by straybaby — July 30, 2009 @ 4:06 pm
We were just laughing about this the other day. I was explaining to someone what “happy tail” was (after having a dog tear an ear flap.. ooooooooh what a mess) and explained that it was one reason FOR tail docking.
The conversation went something like… “Why not remove baby’s fingers to prevent hang nails, or toes to prevent stubbing, or noses to prevent that little bit of inevitable sunburn?”
I have never had a huge issue with tail docks provided they are done PROPERLY. Meaning, providing the dog with enough tail to maintain that musculature, and having the procedure done with local anesthetic and performed by a VET.
I still agree it is unnecessary in all but the occasional working dog.
As for our ear flap injury, 12 hours later, some NewSkin and some vet wrap, and we’re good as new. :O) See? No reason to remove THIS ear!
Comment by Kim — July 30, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
So Banfield is getting a conscience now? Amazing.
We actually don’t see many dogs with ear crops in the fight yards. It’s very rare (Vick dogs, one dog).
It’s pretty common in urban areas, though - and for some of the same reasons that we see horribly butchered trees in some communities. We call it ‘dumb fashion.’
http://badrap-blog.blogspot.co.....balls.html
If you ask a kid why he took a pair of scissors to his dog’s ears, or why he paid the questionable East Oakland vet $100 vet to do the job, he’ll tell you, “You’re supposed to.” No further thought or explanation.
I can’t imagine working through the screaming of dogs that have to suffer the all too common scissors cut. Terrible.
Yes, ear cropping aka impressionable fashion statements that inspire pet abuse in young people = Bad.
Comment by Donna — July 30, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
I dunno, but I suspect ear cropping has nothing to do with aiding performance in the fight ring or in the field, but has a lot more to do with human reaction to pointy ears. A dog with a prick ear is more visually imposing than one with a dropped ear. Hark back to that wolfish ancestry and all.
Banfield developing a conscience? I doubt it for a millisecond. I suspect more that they smell or hear change in the wind. They want to be sure they look good to the Public now by stopping docking, a procedure they probably don’t do much of, so stopping it doesn’t hurt their overall yearly earnings and gives them positive press.
Comment by Anne T — July 30, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
>I suspect ear cropping has nothing to do with aiding performance in the fight ring or in the field,
Dog fighters will trim off ears that get mangled in a fight. The female that came to us from MO, for example. She took some bad injuries to the face/head area at one time, and that may be why her ear flaps were removed -back in her darker days.
Comment by Donna — July 30, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
That is great news. I am originally from The Netherlands.
Tail docking and ear cropping has been illegal for many years there unless for medical reasons.
Declawing for cats is also illegal.
Dobies look very nifty with floppy ears. Ditto with boxers.
Recently, I even believe they outlawed tail docking on farm animails like pigs.
Comment by serijna — July 30, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
If people want dogs with point ears - there are plenty of breeds out there that are born with ears that will point naturally. No need to torture a dog with floppy ears - but then what do you expect from a society that fixes their noses and takes fat out of their butts to add to their bosom.
Comment by cheryl — July 30, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
I doubt that Banfield clinics are doing any crops or docks anyway - and if they are they shouldn’t be! Of course, I wouldn’t take a dog to them for a hangnail:-)
But I still maintain that ear cropping isn’t cruel if done right - that means proper anesthesia and monitoring and pain meds afterward (which aren’t needed for long since ears heal FAST). Modern ear taping methods don’t block air circulation and don’t hurt - the pups don’t cry if they bump their taped ears or stick them through the bars of a crate or if their littermates chomp on them. Since air circulation isn’t blocked the ears can be left alone a lot more, and when it is time to re-tape the pups are taught to enjoy the process just like they are taught to enjoy having their nails Dremeled and their teeth brushed and getting into the tub. They come running when I turn on the Dremel or call them into the bathroom or get out the ear taping supplies so they can’t object to any of those procedures too much! It’s just another basic grooming task and they definitely aren’t scared or hurt.
Banning a medical procedure just because it is sometimes done improperly or cruelly is a dangerous precedent since that applies to ALL medical procedures.
And banning a medical procedure just because it isn’t “medically necessary” is even more dangerous. Non-medically necessary procedures are done every day. Benign lumps and cysts are removed because the owner doesn’t like the way they look; animals get general anesthesia for dentals because the owner doesn’t want to brush the teeth. We are now even seeing studies that indicate that most spays and neuters - at least in dogs - are not “medically necessary” but it sure is a lot more convenient for the owner to not have to deal with an intact pet.
I will love my Danes just as much whether I can have their ears cropped or not - but before we start calling for medical procedures to be banned we should do a little thinking about what we are really getting ourselves into.
Comment by Barb — July 31, 2009 @ 1:22 am
Barb-you might be surprised. If you hang around here a lot you start to think that most people have at least common sense when it comes to pet care. But I was reading the questions on Dogster yesterday…”My dog has scabs on his skin and is vomiting up his food?”
http://www.dogster.com/answers/
and…oh. my. Some of the answers are scary too. I guess, at least, they’re trying to get help.
Comment by Original Lori — July 31, 2009 @ 5:55 am
USA Today picked up the story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/n.....ails_N.htm
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 31, 2009 @ 6:32 am
i think the only time i’ve seen an ear cropping for a reason i felt was as close to “legit” as possible was in working dogo argentino’s - getting their ears cropped was much better than having them ripped off by the tusks of a boar. But still…
Good for Banfield. I don’t really agree with a chain vet clinic doing the procedures in the first place
Comment by Sarah — July 31, 2009 @ 7:24 am
Now if we can just get Banfield to actually read the current science on vaccination and health care ….. wow.
Comment by Wendy — July 31, 2009 @ 7:49 am
Gina, I feel I must disagree (rather strenuously) with your dismissing that tail amputation is that big a deal to puppies: “Honestly, I have never had a huge issue with tail docking. I wouldn’t choose to do it or have it done, but I’ve seen it done and I’m not sure it’s that big a deal for the puppies.”
My personal reaction when I hear the little puppies screaming during these procedures is horror, followed by sadness. And then, I think about the amount of unrecognized and undertreated pain in both animals and humans, particularly so in neonates of all species.
Actually, this is similar to the argument about circumcision pain, and even pain in babies in general. In as recently as the 1980’s, some doctors didn’t even think that babies felt pain, and consequently all sorts of painful procedures, even surgery, were done without adequate analgesia.
I know that when I was an intern in the late 1980’s, I was instructed on how to do a circumcision. Just velcro the babies to a table and do it. They turn red and scream, but I was told, “They’ll get over it; they won’t remember it.” See one, do one, teach one. Just like that.
But now we have physiologic information about how painful procedures early in life can permanently alter pain physiology.
Furthermore, newborns may actually experience a greater sensitivity to pain than older individuals because they may not yet have developed the nervous system pathways that actually help blunt nociceptive, or painful signals arriving in the central nervous system.
So, if dockings of any type are actually deemed medically necessary, why can’t we take some pain control or pre-emptive analgesic measure first? That’s where the evidence in human medicine is leading — to a growing number of reviews supporting procedural pain management in infants.
Comment by Dr. Narda — July 31, 2009 @ 7:54 am
Thanks, Dr. Narda.
I’m all for the pain-management. But please note that I also wrote that I wouldn’t choose to have tails docked on any dog for whom I make medical decisions.
I wonder if you have a thought about the banding of tails, which is very common among breeders. Better or worse, in terms of pain?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 31, 2009 @ 8:11 am
The issue of breeding genetic defects aside for the movement…it would be nice if all breed standards at least did not require the dog to be surgically altered to achieve them…
Comment by Original Lori — July 31, 2009 @ 8:15 am
I don’t support cosmetic surgery for animals and am glad that Banfield actually made the policy—whether they actually conduct the procedures or not is not the point.
Although I’d love for the USA to join more progressive countries that ban such procedures I also believe that it is up to the individual to make the most humane choices for their pets.
We will never all agree but I am sure most of us want only the best for those animals in our charge.
Comment by Ark Lady — July 31, 2009 @ 8:43 am
Gina,
Banding to induce ischemic necrosis so that the tail falls off? I think that’s probably worse. Methods that cut off blood supply and drainage to tissues still allow the nerves to conduct painful stimuli for hours until they, too, die.
Researchers in Scotland have tried to get farmers to move away from rubber ring castration and tail docking in lambs because of the severe pain it causes. From one article: “Everyone needs to be aware of the severe pain induced by rubber ring castration and tail docking in lambs of all ages. Even though the ring often does not cause pain when it is applied, the method compares badly with the short, sharp pain inflicted by the bloodless castrator.” From Kent JE et al. Randomised, controlled field trial of two new techniques for the castration and tail docking of lambs less than two days of age. Veterinary Record. 2004;154:193-200.
Still, though, one needs to ask why analgesia is not used, other than the minimal cost and time it takes.
Comment by Dr. Narda — July 31, 2009 @ 11:26 am
I dunno, but I suspect ear cropping has nothing to do with aiding performance in the fight ring or in the field, but has a lot more to do with human reaction to pointy ears. A dog with a prick ear is more visually imposing than one with a dropped ear. Hark back to that wolfish ancestry and all.
That is correct. Most of the dogs used for trained protection “manwork” have naturally prick ears (German Shepherd Dogs, Malinois, Dutch Shepherds) or cropped ears (Doberman, Boxers). The Rottweiler is an exception, perhaps the overall build of the Rottie is imposing enough.
The upright ears really do make a difference in how people react to a dog. I have found it fascinating to observe people when we take hubby’s GSD for walks in crowded places. This is a VERY imposing looking GSD, 95 lean muscled pounds, dark sable (wolfish looking coloration). This GSD is a bit odd in that he folds his ears back when relaxed, including walking through crowds. Very few people in crowds seem to notice him when his ears are folded back. He becomes the Invisible Dog. But when something catches his attention, the ears pop up — and more than a few people move away from him. I suspect that there is some kind of instinctive response in people to prick ears on canines.
Many people — including lawmakers and veterinarians — seem to forget that dogs have existed for more than 10,000 years, and as showdogs for less than 150 years. Ear cropping existed long before showdogs existed. It has a legitimate functional purpose. It is not purely cosmetic and it is not done only by showdog fanciers and dog fighters.
For protection “manwork” dogs, appearance really does matter; it is an important part of the function of the dog. For example, the police can take a police K9 into the scene of a bar brawl, and the crowd will often disperse without the dog being deployed. One dog, just by showing up, more effective in breaking it up than half a dozen human police officers. A protection dog that can have this effect based on appearance doesn’t need to be deployed to bite as often, and that’s a good thing. For the pet dog of these breeds defending his property and human family, a similar advantage can take place.
Breeding for protection work is the reason a number of breeds still exist as useful working dogs. Not just for police work, but for search-and-rescue, scent detection work, and (in the case of GSDs) even guide dog work.
Ear cropping has been banned in much of western Europe for some years now. The demand for working bred Dobermans shrank considerably as a result. Germany is the global center of working breeding for Dobies. Without it, the working bred Dobie cannot be sustained. Based on the very low numbers, the working bred Dobie appears headed for extinction. I think that’s a shame.
The Dobie may live on, but as a showdog or pet dog breed. A hollow reminder of what once was.
Beware of unintended consequences.
Comment by LauraS — July 31, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Thanks Pai and Dr. Narda for the pointers. I’m going to have think about tail-docking more, that’s for sure.
Oh, and … I would never even consider having a child of mine circumcised without pain relief. In fact, agreeding to have a child of mine circumcised at ALL would be a tough sell.
Fortunately, that’s one decision I’m not ever going to have to make.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 31, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Honestly, I find it kind of sadly amusing that circumcision is sinking ever further in cultural acceptability, even as the medical evidence mounts for measurable net health benefits of circumcision after controlling for good hygiene habits.
Obviously pain relief should be used, but for American culture to have practiced circumcision routinely for almost two centuries, much of that time without pain relief and with “hygiene” argument resting on a foundation of fantasy, only to abandon it when pain relief is easily and readily available and science is proving against all expectation that there really are net health benefits—it’s bizarre.
Comment by Lis — July 31, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
I guess I kinda like people sticking with the parts they bring into this world. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 31, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Interesting all this talk about not docking or cropping by the vets….
But nothing said about mandatory spaying and neutering…….. is the income greater for spaying and neutering than for cropping and docking? Certainly it is a lot more dangerous for the pets to be spayed or neutered. I once saw some puppies having their tails docked at 2 or 3 days of age, most wiggled but did not cry and there was no bleeding. Very strange this big to do about such a procedure. Hmmm, is it the money? I’ve heard money makes the world go round. Shame on Banfield.
Circumcision, interesting how we let medcial professions lead us or attempt to.
The American public needs to do a little more thinking before being lead down a path we should not go. Beware the dictates of others and think before you let someone pass a law because the next law might take a right YOU want. I guess you need to decide what does this really hurt. Obviously docking hurts nothing but the vets don’t make much money on it because it is so simple; is that’s why they are supporting it?
Comment by Mary — July 31, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
Mary … welcome to the PetConnection. If you think “nothing” has been said about mandatory spay-neuter here, I recommend you use the search function.
I also recommend you check your attitude at the door until you do find out what has been written here, and at the very least use Teh Googles to find some factual support for your views.
Contrary to your claim, veterinary organizations have come out against mandatory spay-neuter, arguing that it is a governmental intervention into a medical decision that should be made on an individual basis by a pet-owner after consulting with a veterinarian.
The research into the negative aspects of spaying and neutering has also been done by veterinarians.
You also appear to be highly uninformed about the medical procedures you’re discussing. To equate a castration with an ovio-hysterectomy is bizarre. One is a minor procedure; the other is surely not.
As for your claim that “obviously docking hurts nothing but the vets making money on it” … again, you are incorrect. Dr. Robinson has offered citations to peer-reviewed studies to show that in fact the procedure hurts.
When something hurts, one must then decide if the pain offers benefits … to the animal, to the owner, or to society at large. This is where the discussion is. That there is pain has been established by the science; the ethics of inducing that pain are decided by us all.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 1, 2009 @ 6:27 am
Mary, had you not just parachuted in here after googling for discussions of tail docking and ear cropping, you’d know that the ladies whose blog this is as well as most of the regulars here oppose Mandatory Spay/Neuter, and believe that the decision to spay or neuter should be the choice of the responsible dog owner in consultation with their vet, based on what’s best for the individual dog.
If you had been reading this post and its comments carefully, you would have noticed that there is less concern about tail docking than about ear cropping.
It’s true that spaying, at least, is major surgery, but spay/neuter, especially spaying, has significant health benefits for the dog as well as the risks that go with the surgery. Ear cropping and tail docking, for all the strained arguments to the contrary, are purely cosmetic and have no benefit to the animal. That’s a huge difference, right there.
Comment by Lis — August 1, 2009 @ 6:38 am
AVMA.org piece on debarking, declawing:
http://www.avma.org/convention/news/tuesday08.asp
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 1, 2009 @ 7:16 am
From the AVMA article:
“Dr. Moffat said studies have found very little lameness and no behavioral changes in cats after declawing.”
The anti-declaw sites would have you believe that every cat who has had this surgery turns into a neurotic quaking nutcase who stops using the litterbox and becomes horribly aggressive to compensate for the loss of claws as “defense”. And yet I’m aware of lots of cats who have been declawed and exhibit no detectable behavior changes. Anecdotal v.s. “studies” (which are not cited in the article, by the way) but still . . . . . . . . . . . . .
As for debarking, I KNOW it keeps dogs in homes (Translation: Saves their lives) and while a parallel might be drawn to the “disarming” discussion (e.g. that it does nothing to allay the underlying causes), I don’t believe that a dog who seems to be compelled to bark despite all efforts to curb the behavior is in anywhere near the same kind of internal hell as is a dog who is so conflicted/fearful that he feels the need to bite/attack any and all comers.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 1, 2009 @ 7:48 am
Personally, I agree with the AVMA that declawing and debarking are surgeries of last resort, but they do have their place.
I live with a debarked dog: My Sheltie, Drew. He was debarked by a previous owner. A lot of Shelties end up debarked because their yappiness can drive you crazy, and installing an “off” switch is pretty much impossible with these guys. (I say that as a person who has lived with Shelties for 30 years, and who ran a Sheltie rescue. I love everything about Shelties except the yapping.)
Would *I* have debarked Drew? Never. For a Sheltie, he’s actually not much of a barker. I’ve fostered Shelties who’d bark when a leaf fell three blocks away. Drew’s a relatively sensible alarm-barker.
But I gotta be honest: He barks enough that I don’t mind that he WAS debarked. He barks, and he’s happy. He can’t make as much noise doing it, and I’m happy.
Again, it’s a given that any surgical procedure means pain. McKenzie was down for three days after her recent spay, and that was WITH great pain meds. It hurt. Would I choose surgery for her again? Yes.
We have to weigh the potential gain for the pain, on three levels: For the animal, for the owner, and for society.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 1, 2009 @ 7:59 am
Well, I have to insert my radical views again.
Banfield is still promoting cat declawing without informing owners of the actual extensive horrific procedure. To me cat declawing is pure animal torture/mutulation. Ditto with docking/cropping. Unless for medical reasons it is barbaric. So Banfield is still on my sh*t list.
Circumcision for human male babies. Also torture and barbaric as the above.
This one hit close to home , since my daughter, first time pregnant, said she selected circumcision. Reason, doc told her everybody did it to the tune of 90%(not true 50% on east coast, much lower on progressive west coast).
I asked her if she was planning to become jewish or islamic. The only just reason IMO.
I will make her change her mind though in one way or another.
But then I grew up in Western Europe in a different culture..
Mandatory spaying and neutering. I have a problem with the word mandatory. Makes my neck hairs stand up. Still for the plain average Heinz 57 variety house pets, if mandatory spaying/neutering at no cost to the owner,would not be such a bad deal. The H$U$ could easily finance that with all their millions on ice.Followed with a dog license at a lesser cost than not neutered/spayed pets. Hard to enforce, however.
Neutering is a blink of the eye surgery(5 minutes, I watched many feral cats neutered), spaying is much more extensive and certain high risk pets should be exempted from it.
Bebarking, not too familiar with it. However, if I had a pet that I was forced to give up, unless debarked, I would probably do it if it was impossible to move to another location..
Comment by serijna — August 1, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Banfield is still promoting cat declawing without informing owners of the actual extensive horrific procedure. To me cat declawing is pure animal torture/mutulation. Ditto with docking/cropping. Unless for medical reasons it is barbaric. So Banfield is still on my sh*t list.
They’ve made a step in the right direction; are you saying they get zero credit for positive change until they have moved 100% in the direction you (and I) would like to see?
Circumcision for human male babies. Also torture and barbaric as the above.
This one hit close to home , since my daughter, first time pregnant, said she selected circumcision. Reason, doc told her everybody did it to the tune of 90%(not true 50% on east coast, much lower on progressive west coast).
Yes, agreeing with you is by definition “progressive.”
I asked her if she was planning to become jewish or islamic. The only just reason IMO.
I will make her change her mind though in one way or another.
This is what amazes and impresses me. The heck with the medical evidence; that’s an unacceptable reason. The only acceptable reason is religious. That’s a “progressive” attitude. As is saying that your daughter will comply with your wishes in regard to her son, because anything else is unacceptable—at least, to you.
But then I grew up in Western Europe in a different culture..
Yeah, and you know what? The fact that it’s European doesn’t automatically make it better.
Comment by Lis — August 1, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
As a Jewish mother of three boys, I’d have to say that circumcision, when done with care and consideration, is more traumatic to an exhausted mother, at least when done at your home.
We had a pediatrician who was also certified to perform the bris ceremony for all three. The boys received topical pain killer and an anesthetic block. They did not like being restrained, not one bit, but that was the only time they cried. The actual procedure is f-a-s-t. The area is slathered in an antibiotic with a numbing agent and heals with speed, none of them fussed afterwards. In fact, as soon as they were handed back to me and got something to eat, they were happy and quiet.
The very public brit mah ceremony is torture however. For mom! You have a baby, 8 days later heaven knows how many people descend on your home. Forget putting your feet up and nesting, it’s clean clean clean and cook cook cook, although we finally got smart and hired a caterer the last go round.
“Neutering is a blink of the eye surgery(5 minutes, I watched many feral cats neutered)”
Errmm, not always. Dogs can have complications, in fact they can and do bleed sometimes, sometimes with disasterous results.
Also, heinz 57 or not, large dogs and certain mixes may be at far greater risk of CCL rupture, certain cancers, hip dysplasia if neutered too early in life. Also there is growing evidence that neutered males are more likely to suffer cognitive dysfunction at an earlier age than intact males.
The decision to alter owned pets and at what age needs to be made by the owner, veterinarian and possibly with the pet’s breeders involvement depending on the circumstances, it should not be dictated by government agencies who will not have to live with the consequences.
And BTW, I had a girl spayed yesterday, so I am certainly not anti s/n. XD
Comment by JenniferJ — August 1, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
Oooooooh the “Heinz 57” comments in regards to MSN make me bristle in ways I can’t even describe.
I just LOVE how it’s perfectly ok to force laws pertaining to medical procedures on those who are “less than worthy” such as my obviously throwaway “mutts.”
ALL of my current dogs are mixed breeds. ALL are intelligent, healthy, sweet, great companions, hard workers and INTACT.
Do I have plans to breed any of them? Nope. But if I did, would it make me such a horrible person? Why, because they don’t have papers?
Serijna, your “those who are lesser than myself” attitude is not going to sway any discussions around here. Your opinions towards your daughter, your grandson, and the millions of “Heinz 57” dogs who care to maintain ALL the parts (or at least retain the personal choice regarding all medical decisions) that they were born with… well, frankly I find it dismissive, elitist and pretentious.
Keep your opinions - hell, hang on to them for dear life. But don’t think that they should be the opinions of others just because you say so.
Off to walk my beautiful “Heinz 57” mutts to the dog park.
Comment by Kim — August 2, 2009 @ 9:15 am
Kim,
I think you kind of misunderstood my heinz 57 variety comment. I value mutts just a much as a pedigreed “with/without papers” dogs. Actual mutts with various bloodlines in their background seem to pick up the best out of each breed without the specific inherited ailments and make wonderful dogs.
However, when it comes to adoption from shelters, those that closely resemble a breed, do get adopted faster.
I cringe each time I see a sign on the road/ newspaper for free puppies or free kittens. They could end up in a laboratory, food for a komodo pet dragon, snake or worse.
Spend some time at your local SPCA shelter and witness how many healthy young animals/babies are euthanized.
I am against mandatory spaying/neutering. However, I also think that giant animal welfare orgs like the H$U$ should fork over some money to help partial pay for neutering/spaying at local vet for low income pet owners.
My opinions are solely my own. I do not expect anybody to change theirs.
I respect other bloggers opinions highly and would never trash them for being different than my own.
Sometimes I even alter my opinions based on different opinions backed by facts.
Blogs IMO are great/refreshing to hear other opinions. It really broadens your horizons and forces you to re examine your values.
It forces me to change my own outdated ones from time to time.
Finally, all bloggers here , have one thing in common. The welfare of animals.
I always keep that in mind.
Comment by serijna — August 2, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
Serijina, we are all concerned here with animal and also human welfare. But young, healthy animals, especially babies and neonates should not be killed by SPCA’s or shelters.
And yep, I mean killed. Euthanasia is done to ease suffering, not because of space, or because a shelter does not have a good volunteer base in place to accomodate newborns, pregnant animals or orphans.
I’d recommend you pick up a copy of Redemption. The decision to kill baby animals or young healthy animals is just that, a decision. It ONLY stops when those in charge make a fundamental change in thinking and determine that such actions are unacceptable. Waiting until the pieces are all in place etc, and hoping it will someday not happen somehow DOES NOT WORK.
Also mix breeds do not always get the best of both worlds in terms of health and personality. They may in fact get the worst behavioral traits of both parents with health problems from both sides. Christie had a great blog entry on this subject about a month back. Hybrid vigor is a very real thing, but if a mix breed has poorly bred, unhealthy, unstable parents, it’s no magic bullet.
Comment by JenniferJ — August 2, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Actual mutts with various bloodlines in their background seem to pick up the best out of each breed without the specific inherited ailments and make wonderful dogs.
A fairy tale heavily promoted by puppy mills breeding “designer” mutts, but not supported by much of anything. The only automatic benefit you get simply from crossing widely separated lines in the absence of health screening, is that the pups will have a more diverse set of immune system alleles than either of the parents, which does mean a stronger, more flexible immune system than the parents had. But if they both had weak immune systems to begin with, you might still wind up with a dog whose immune system isn’t anything to write home about, compared to a well-bred purebred.
Comment by Lis — August 2, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
The only automatic benefit you get simply from crossing widely separated lines in the absence of health screening, is that the pups will have a more diverse set of immune system alleles than either of the parents, which does mean a stronger, more flexible immune system than the parents had.
There is also the advantage of a MUCH lower probability of homozygous deleterious recessives, which is thought to be a major cause of inbreeding depression.
Comment by LauraS — August 2, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
I’m sorry… did you just tell me to spend some time at my local SPCA?
For the record, dear commenter, I have been involved in rescue for over a decade, and running a private rescue group for several years out of my own home. Don’t tell me about animals who need rescue.
Secondly, your “all the puppies and kittens” argument is irrelevant (regardless of how incorrect it is to begin with). Your initial comment was as follows:
“Mandatory spaying and neutering. I have a problem with the word mandatory. Makes my neck hairs stand up. Still for the plain average Heinz 57 variety house pets, if mandatory spaying/neutering at no cost to the owner,would not be such a bad deal.”
You referred to my beloved companions as “plain average Heinz 57 variety house pets” and suggested that the government interfering in their medical decisions (raising the risk for prostate cancer, osteosarcoma, ligament tears and spay incontinence) was just fine and dandy as long as there was no $$ involved. After all, they’re just “plain average house pets” so who cares, right?
As for your “just my opinion” comment, when proceeded by the suggestion that you will MAKE your daughter see the light about circumcision, ‘scuse me if I don’t immediately accept your declaration of universal understanding.
In the future, you would do well to refrain from referring to ANY dog as “plain average house pets” regardless of parentage, or you most certainly risk offending the vast majority of readers.
Comment by Kim — August 3, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Okay - THIS one had me doing a double-take!
http://www.northerntool.com/we....._200326354
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 4, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
The OTHER Pat:
We wouldn’t use the northerntool to debark a dog, though, would we.:)
Comment by Colorado Transplant — August 4, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Nah - I’d just do it the old-fashioned way with a surgical snips!
(Good thing I’m not a vet, huh?)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — August 5, 2009 @ 5:11 am
Weirdest name tool, and one I actually DO use on the dogs: The Bastard Rasp. (I use it as a tool to take off the rough edges on their nails.)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — August 5, 2009 @ 6:15 am
Banfield has every right to take this position. I have the right to encourage people to not support them and Petsmart as well. It is all fine & well to say you don’t want your own dog docked or cropped, but you should NOT tell others what to do and impose your views
just because someone disagrees. No one is forcing anyone to crop & dock-it should be MY choice. When all is said and done and the ARs have gotten thier way down the road and NO one has pets, none of this will matter.
Comment by jas — August 6, 2009 @ 1:20 pm